Re: [PATCH] static_call,x86: Robustify trampoline patching

Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-30T18:55:33Z

On Sat, 30 Oct 2021 at 20:03, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 07:19:53PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > I just realized that arm64 has the exact same problem, which is not
> > being addressed by my v5 of the static call support patch.
>
> Yeah, it would.
>
> > As it turns out, the v11 Clang that I have been testing with is broken
> > wrt BTI landing pads, and omits them from the jump table entries.
> > Clang 12+ adds them properly, which means that both the jump table
> > entry and the static call trampoline may start with BTI C + direct
> > branch, and we also need additional checks to disambiguate.
>
> I'm not sure, why would the static_call trampoline need a BTI C ? The
> whole point of static_call() is to be a direct call, we should never
> have an indirect call to the trampoline, that would defeat the whole
> purpose.

This might happen when the distance between the caller and the
trampoline is more than 128 MB, in which case we emit a veneer that
uses an indirect call as well. So we definitely need the landing pad
in the trampoline.